On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 12:05:59PM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> The version of icu in debian is very old. I have recently taken over
> maintainership of the package. I had originally intended to wait
> until after the g++ transition had completed to do the ICU transition,
> but I'm now strongly considering building new ICU packages to upload
> to unstable before the g++ transition is finished. The main reason
> for this is that icu 2.1 fails to build on ARM, but icu 3.4 beta
> succeeds. The only direct reverse dependencies of the icu package are
> the xerces packages which I also maintain. There are only three or
> four reverse dependencies of the xerces packages. Right at this
> moment, libxml-xerces-perl has succeeded on arm even though xerces25
> has failed, which probably means that it is not in a stable state with
> respect to the g++ transition. Also, I'm about to move, go on
> vacation, and change jobs, so my available time will drop for a short
> time (from late August through mid September), and it might be good to
> have this done before then. There is also an icu28 package in debian,
> but it is not necessary to convert its reverse dependencies to use the
> new icu package at the same time -- that can wait until after the g++
> transition.
> If I start this transition as early as this weekend, it should not
> hold up the g++ transition, and I will be able to monitor it closely
> for two or three weeks before I start being much less available.
> Given all this, can anyone think of any reason why I should not start
> an ICU transition this weekend?
If the only packages that need to be rebuilt for this change are xerces25
and xerces26, and those packages don't also need to have name changes in the
process, then I see no reason not to proceed with the change. You'll have
to upload icu one way or another to fix the FTBFS, so you might as well go
with the lib transition while you're at it since the set of affected
packages is so small.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer